FSFE-IE June 2004

fsfe-ie@lists.fsfe.org

31 participants
46 discussions

Voting RFC
by Daithí Mac Síthigh 06 Jun '04

06 Jun '04

The Sunday Business Post computer magazine today had responses from various candidates (Bacik, De Rossa, Doyle, Ryan, Dubsky) on four specific questions (patents, P2P, data privacy, and spam) which would be useful for this exercise. They also give a list of excuses from those who didn't reply, but alas names are omitted to protect the guilty ;)

1 0

Fwd: Re: Europe: Sign petition against Software Patents /Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure & Eurolinux Alliance
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 06 Jun '04

06 Jun '04

I got this from another list. Teresa

1 0

June 11th voting RFC
by Ciaran O'Riordan 05 Jun '04

05 Jun '04

I think it's time to produce a voting recommendation email for the MEP vote on June 11th. Some iluggers have already requested it, and I'm sure others have too. The polls predict that Patricia McKenna will just about lose her seat this year and Nuala Ahern's replacement (Mary White) doesn't look like she'll get a seat, these would be shames since McKenna and Ahern fully backed us on the patents directive. Ivana Bacik also seems to be on our side, but she also doesn't look like she'll be getting a seat. Eoin Dubsky is the same AFAIK. ...those are from the top of my head. What other MEPs (incumbent or candidates) have shown an interest in the non-patentability of software ideas? "Tier 1" candidates should be people like McKenna that have a track record of rejecting software idea patents, "Tier 2" candidates would be people like Bacik that have no record but sound about right or come from parties which seem to have a software-non-patentability position. "Please avoid" would be candidates with an unrepented record of voting for software idea patentability - or candidates from parties which seem to have patent-inflation policies. I've only just started on this, but I suspect I won't be able to do a good job of voting recommendations for outside of Dublin - so can politically savvy people or nondubs give a hand here? Here's two webpages with tables of how the sitting MEPs voted in relation to how FFII asked them to vote: http://www.ffii.org.uk/votes/swpat/country/IE.html http://beauprez.net/softpat/lobbybase/search.php -- Ciarán O'Riordan http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ Irish Free Software Organisation: http://ifso.ie

1 0

Transcript
by Glenn Strong 04 Jun '04

04 Jun '04

Anyone who wants to check out the whole transcript, I've placed my working draft online here: http://www.cs.tcd.ie/Glenn.Strong/Documents/ifso/rms-2004-05-24-transcript.… (this link may go dead if I find major flaws in the transcript). I'll incorporate Conor's corrections later today. Proper CSS styling and other things to follow. -- Glenn Strong

2 4

FW: Re: Software Patents in the European Union
by ian＠dodo.freenetproject.org 04 Jun '04

04 Jun '04

This strikes me as being rather worrying since she seems to be happy with the Council's text even though the UK LibDems are supposed to be anti-swpat. I am on the road at the moment so it isn't a good time for me to draft a reply, but I would appreciate any comments which I can incorporate when I get back home next week. Ian. Original Message: ----------------- From: Elspeth Attwooll EAttwooll(a)europarl.eu.int Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:16:29 +0200 To: ian(a)locut.us Subject: Re: Software Patents in the European Union Dear Mr Clarke Further to our correspondence on the proposed EU Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, I wanted to update you following the adoption of the common position, and outline our position on software patents. We addressed this issue in the Liberal Democrat IT policy paper "Making IT Work" which was adopted at our Spring Conference in 2003. This made it clear that we would "support continued widespread innovation in software by resisting the wider application of patents in this area." The LibDems are in favour of increased legal certainty in the EU; a balance needs to be struck between the needs of small business on the one hand, to protect their inventions - and big business, on the other, from patenting everything to the exclusion of competitors. This has guided our approach to the legislation during its passage through the European Parliament. The European Parliament voted its first reading on the proposal in September 2003 where amendments were adopted to strictly limit patents to new inventions only. The Parliament's position would harmonise current practice in the European Patents Office, and ensure that patents in the field of computer engineering would be issued on the same basis in all EU Member States. Specifically, the UK Liberal Democrats supported an amendment to the definition, so that "In order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible of industrial application and new and involve an inventive step. In order to involve an inventive step, a computer-implemented invention must make a technical contribution". More recently, as you will know, the Council of Ministers adopted its common position on 18 May 2004. This is the text of the legislation as Government Ministers wish to see it adopted. The Council has specifically excluded a computer program, as such, from constituting a patentable invention. It has also accepted the Parliament's amendment (above) as the Condition of Patentablity. I hope this will allay your concerns. Yours sincerely, Elspeth Attwooll >>> Ian Clarke <ian(a)locut.us> 05/19/04 08:30 >>> Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to all of my Scottish MEPs to enquire as to your opinion concerning yesterday's successful approval of the Irish Presidency's version of the software patents directive by the Council of Ministers. Having listened with interest to the recording of the debate, it is clear that while concerns were raised as to the potential for this directive to harm innovation and competition in Europe, the final text completely fails to address these concerns substantively. In particular, a number of member states seem to have been mislead as to the effect of a German amendment which was modified after it had been circulated (this modification effectively rendered the amendment complete inert). This and other brazenly underhanded tactics appear to have been effective in pushing through a text which fails to address any of the concerns that were addressed by the amendments made by the European Parliament in September 2003. It is not an exaggeration to say that this episode has shaken my faith in the European Union, and should be troubling to anyone that cares about democracy in Europe, irrespective of their position on software patents. It is nothing less than an affront to the ability of our directly elected representatives to influence the laws passed at the European level. I would like you ask whether you share my concerns, and what action, if any, you will take to address this issue. Needless to say, this will have a significant bearing on my vote in the upcoming European elections, not to mention the votes of many of my peers. In conclusion, I would like to quote from a transcript of yesterday's vote, I think it nicely illustrates the confusion caused by the modification to the German amendment, and the way that this confusion was exploited to push the text through: ----begin quote--- (14:40) IT: We are ready to vote in favour of the compromise proposal of the Irish presidency and over the proposals of the Commission. There is only one misunderstanding that we wish to see cleared. We have said that we agreed on the German proposal on the meaning of technical contribution, but we had meant the original German proposal. Now, I see that the Germans have left the last two sentences of their proposal and whilst the first two sentences might be left out without particularly constituting any change, the last sentence - "processing, handling, presentation etc do not belong to a technical field, even where technological devices are employed for such purposes - that sentence we think is essential, if we are to give our agreement to the German text. So we would want that sentence to be included again. If you could change it in that way, we will be able to vote in favour of the Presidency's and Commission's compromise proposal. We will be unable to accept the Commission's proposal, in other words. (abstention) (16:50) Bolkestein: President, it seems to me that the German amendment as I read it out before the short break is clear enough, does not need any additions to it. My advice to the Council would be to take it as amended by the commission in a very slight, technical way by the Commission. I hope that this won't stand in the way of minister Buttiglione voting in favour, but one again I think that the German proposal is a good one and that we should stick it apart from this slight technical change that I proposed. [...] # IE: And Denmark? Can I hear from Denmark please? # Denmark: I would really ask to commission whether they couldn't fix the last sentence put forward by Italy. It was in the original German proposal. # (19:13) IE: I think the Commissioner already answered that question, I'm sorry Denmark. So are you yes, no, abstain? # DK: I think we wouldn't, we're not hap... # IE: Can I assume you're a "yes"? # DK: We're not happy # IE: But are you 80% happy? # DK: But... I think we... # IE: We don't need you you to be totally happy. None of us are totally happy. # DK: I know that, I know that. # IE: If we were, we wouldn't be here # DK: I think we're not very happy, but I think we would, we would... # IE: Thank you very much # DK: ... we would like to see a solution today. ---end of quote--- Yours Sincerely, Ian Clarke, Managing Director, Cematics Ltd 16/2 Mill Lane Edinburgh Scotland EH6 6TJ -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .

1 0

Opportunity to question MEP candidates
by mmcweeney＠oceanfree.net 04 Jun '04

04 Jun '04

To whoever will be attending these interviews... Last week I got toasted by a list member (off the list) for daring to mention to someone non-technical an analogy between a copyright on a bike design, and a patent on "Mechanically propelled transport". While ultra-crude, it still had the effect of getting the CONCEPT accross about the differences between copyrights and patents. Once that's understood, however crudely, the audience will have some interest in hearing an answer, as opposed to hearing waffle above their heads. The correction to my analogy mentioned LZW Compression algorithms and Instant messengers. (ZZZzzz... to 99% of your audience). We also need the support (and) ears of people who don't understand these concepts. As I understand people, most are happy to get the jist of something, "leave it to the experts to trash out", and tune in for the result. I would reserve involved arguements for an occasion that Vincent Brown or others would see fit to do an item (or program) about it. For now, we need to make friends and win support. Whever's going along, good luck & hope that's useful Mel *************************** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************** Get 100 Free Mapping Credits from IOL Mapping! All new site and new features. Log on for your Free Credits! maps.IOL.ie

1 0

The MPL, what is it?
by Aidan Delaney 04 Jun '04

04 Jun '04

Hey all, Given that there's speculation that Sun will release Solaris under a Mozilla Public Licence type licence can someone tell me what is in this licence? How does it compare to the GPL or LGPL? -- Aidan Delaney email: adelaney(a)cs.may.ie web: http://www.cs.may.ie/~adelaney gpg: http://www.cs.may.ie/~adelaney/public_key.asc

2 1

Opportunity to question MEP candidates
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 04 Jun '04

04 Jun '04

Vincent Brown has been featuring interviews with MEP candidates on his RTE1 programme which goes out at 22.00. On Saturday, he'll record a programme at 13.00 from a hotel in Listowel with candidates from the southern region to be broadcast on Monday. On Tuesday, there will be a live broadcast from the Royal College of Surgeons with the Dublin candidates. Arrive by 21.30. An opportunity to raise any issues... Teresa

1 0

Ireland to build register of 3g phone users
by Sean O'Donnell 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/01/ireland_3g_register/ In and of itself I dont have a problem with this , but the content filtering part could be seen as the thin end of the wedge to filter all forms of communication. Sean

3 2

Re: [Fsfe-ie] Another awful treaty in the works
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

This one has been in the pipeline at WIPO for a couple of years. At the meeting next week of the WIPO copyright committee, a decision will be made on whether to go ahead with a diplomatic conference in 2004/2005 to agree on a Treaty text. There are some important outstanding issues however and unless agreement can be reached in advance, it is unlikely that WIPO member states will wish to go ahead (a diplomatic conference on the protection of AV performances in 2000 failed). *The Treaty would create a new layer of exclusive rights to transmitters of information, even if they are not the creators *The proposal may include broadcast, cablecast, webcast (US in favour of webcast, others such as Singapore [and I think Japan] are against) *No agreed definition on content, it is argued the whole web if sounds/images/text included *Term of protection is 50 years, in contrast to 20yrs for TRIPS and 15yrs for database rights *Could cover public domain, non-copyrightable materials e.g. facts and GPL material. I will be at the WIPO meeting next week with a coalition of NGOs. More info at: http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/wipo-casting.html Teresa NOTE ON WIPO: An agent of the UN, WIPO has 180 member states. The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights meets twice a year and comprises national civil servants responsible for copyright issues. Ireland is represented by the IP Unit at the Dept of Enterprise. WIPO Treaties are important e.g. one of the purposes of the EUCD 2001 was to implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996 into Community law. "Malcolm Tyrrell" wrote: > > > I'm not suggesting IFSO take this one on, but perhaps some > of you would be interested. > > Apparantly there are moves at the WIPO level to give > broadcasters (not copyright holders) exclusive rights over > the material they broadcast. These rights apply even if the > material is public domain. > > Check out: > > http://www.public-domain.org/?q=node/view/31 > > Malcohol

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

FSFE-IE June 2004